The purpose of this subreddit is to showcase the large and widespread anti-r/atheism sentiment that is prevalent on Reddit. We believe that the criticism of /r/atheism is significantly out of proportion with its alleged quality issues.

We encourage you to post a link here any time you notice an anti-r/atheism post or comment on Reddit from any of the major subreddits. Be aware that you will be doing this at your own risk as some subreddits, such as r/Christianity, will ban you from their subreddit.

DO NOT VOTE on any of the threads this subreddit links to. Feel free to make reasonable, polite comments, but do not vote and never harass other users.

The following subreddits either bash r/atheism or atheists exclusively or very frequently. There's no sense linking to them so please refrain from doing that:

His Twitter profile. I'm thinking he could have made it big on /r/Cringepics even without the fake OKC profile. It's also interesting that his only concern about essentially defaming a minority group is that he wanted more twitter followers from it. https://twitter.com/sewerbro

I think the most honest part of the whole thing was the title of the post. "The face of militant atheism" has nothing to do with real atheists. The image atheists have is almost entirely a fabrication of anti-atheists, at least where Reddit and the internet are concerned, and in some cases far beyond that.

He goes on to say hes primarily against the "new atheism" movement, not just 'atheists' in general.

I'm also not sure where you gathered that he did it for twitter followers? The only thing I could find was his reason for commenting on redditnow is to drum up support for a documentary his friend is making - nothing to do with twitter followers.

So I did a bit more digging with what you posted, and I found the relevant quote of "because I love god so much", it was his response on twitter to a user called "AtheistFeinberg", which I presume is you. So your twittername leads with the idea you're an atheist, and this guy trolls you with "because I love god so much!!!".

Whoosh

This guy is a self admitted atheist (if "not a person of belief" means atheist) who is making fun of the "new" atheist movement.

It's from his twitter feed. I couldn't figure out a convenient way to link it last night, and I wasn't interested in doing a screen capture.

I did find him saying that he himself is an atheist...

Clearly he doesn't consider himself an atheist, despite the fact that he isn't religious. This isn't uncommon, really. There are plenty of people who either have unreasonable ideas about what the word 'atheist' means, or they want to distance themselves from atheism for their own reasons. In fact, on every thread referencing Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan, you get people complaining that neither man "is an atheist", which misses the point that they're just as much an atheist as very nearly all the people who refer to themselves as atheists.

This guy clearly doesn't consider himself an atheist, and I figure that's his call to make.

He goes on to say hes primarily against the "new atheism" movement, not just 'atheists' in general.

But he's not attacking new atheists. He's going after atheists in general. Also, you're pretty thoroughly misrepresenting what he actually said, here. He very clearly did not say that he's against primarily against new atheism. What he said was:

also many aspects of the new atheism movement things tend to stray off into awful areas such as men's rights and nerd culture, so yeah

That's not even a coherent statement, much less a reasonable basis for an objection. This is like someone saying that he hates black people because he heard that Cameroonians eat dogs. It's an attempt to justify bigotry with nonsense.

So your twittername leads with the idea you're an atheist, and this guy trolls you with "because I love god so much!!!".

This may shock you, but I figured that was the case the minute he said it. That's why I put it in quotes, you see. That's him saying it, make of it what you will. This guy has already demonstrated amply that he's a lying sack and a bit of an idiot, so there's really no reason to assume that anything he says is more or less of a lie than anything else. In fact, he could have been lying about not being religious, for all we know. There's a decent chance that he views his entire "slimepunk comedian poet" who hates nerds and atheists act as some elaborate charade meant to troll people as well. Bottom line, though, even if he is lying about everything, he's a massive idiot and a total jackass.

This guy is a self admitted atheist (if "not a person of belief" means atheist) who is making fun of the "new" atheist movement.

He hasn't "admitted" any such thing, and even if he were to say he was an atheist, there's a decent chance that would be just another lie, and it wouldn't change the fact that he's a douchebox.

And yet, when you press those same people to make specific claims or present actual examples, it generally turns out that they can't, or that their objection is entirely subjective and their examples are simply things they don't care for.

Are you suggesting that there is no reason for the backlash against r/atheism? Is the ridicule of /r/atheism all fabricated?

That's more or less the case, actually. Many of the complaints are unreasonable or outright fabrications, and the few valid complaints are blown far out of proportion.

Of course the examples are going to be subjective. How could they be objective when we're talking about peoples perceptions of different groups.

If you're making an objective claim, you should have objective evidence. People aren't saying that they don't like the content in /r/atheism. They're saying that the content in /r/atheism is bad. In fact, if you ask them if that's a fact or an opinion, they will tell you it's a fact just about every time.

It took me all of 5 minutes to find this one on the current front page of /r/atheism

Good for you. You found one example of a questionable post. One. Every subreddit has them. As I recall, your rather vague criticism was that much of the content on /r/atheism was justifying bigotry with nonsense. One post is not "much of the content".

This isn't even a verifiably fake post, and from what I see there nobody is insisting that it's true. It's not even farfetched. Christians do things like this. It happens. Nobody's saying they all do this. Insisting that it's fake would be less reasonable than withholding judgement on whether or not it's true, and I see quite a few people insisting that it's fake

Infact out of the 300+ comments, only 7 mention further information about it being the 'bible belt' but there is clearly snow on the ground, none of those comments broke 2 upvotes.

I see quite a few posts asking for more details and questioning the validity of the post, including one at a net 77 and another at 57. Seriously, though, snow on the ground means it's not in the Bible Belt? That's incredibly stupid reasoning.

Reminds me of something I saw earlier, "/r/Cringepics r/atheism:If you make a picture that fits our biases, we'll give you karma. It's that simple!"

Like I said, this post is well within the bounds of believability and not verifiably fake. In the instance you're referring to, the OP had posted a picture that was verifiably and obviously fake immediately before one which was highly suspect, establishing that he was willing to do so, and this is after a pattern of similar incidents.

So yeah, you have picked out one arguably bad post and you appear to be presenting this as justification for people bashing /r/atheism constantly in just about every subreddit, which is just about textbook confirmation bias. You still haven't made a specific criticism, you're just saying that /r/atheism is bad because you found a bad post there, and if we apply that logic fairly, every subreddit on the site should be slammed with hate nonstop, because they're all at least that terrible.

But ask yourself why are you under the impression that stuff like this is commonplace?

This is what I'm talking about; a group promotes critical thinking will accept that 'christian hatecrimes are common', when the actual evidence shows differently. A group which criticizes religious people due to their 'cognative dissonance' and 'confirmation bias' will exercise those two things during the criticism.

In 2010, there were only 7 reported hatecrimes against atheists in the US... So saying 'it happens' is a bit far fetched.

There were 1175 total hate crimes against non-Christians in that report. 88% of the crimes in that chart were committed against groups which all together comprise less than 25% of the whole. Who do you suppose was committing all those crimes? Religious intolerance elves?

Christians do things like this. It happens. The low number for atheism on this chart shows only that atheists can go undetected more readily than other groups due to not having mandated places of worship or easily identifiable items of clothing. It also demonstrates that there's plenty of hate going around for everyone, and it's probably best for atheists to keep their heads down.

This is what I'm talking about; a group promotes critical thinking will accept that 'christian hatecrimes are common', when the actual evidence shows differently.

This is the confirmation bias I was talking about. You took the one figure that confirms what you want to see and presented it as proof of your bias, and ignored pretty much everything else. Don't get me wrong; I'm glad you researched this at all. It's just that you didn't look past the part you felt justified your assertion. I mean, there's also the issue that those statistics show that hate crimes against atheists do happen, and then there's the issue that the incident in the post would probably fall below the $400 threshold to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

I'm not personally dedicated to the idea that atheists are oppressed in any way. But people do things like what we're talking about here. At least 7 reported in 2010, right? But most of the kind of thing we're talking about isn't stuff that would go on a list of hate crimes. Vandalized bumper stickers and keyed cars, for example, probably won't make that list if they're even reported. But those things happen, even if they aren't an everyday occurrence for most atheists.

If I put a bumper sticker on my car expressing a lack of belief in gods, or worse, the Christian god in particular, I know I'm running a risk of vandalism. I know this because I've had an AHA bumper sticker ripped off my car (and it looked like the person spent a bit of time trying to get it because it was stuck on pretty good), and that sticker wasn't even overtly expressing any atheism. My mother has had more explicit bumper stickers on her car, and somebody keyed over it, scratching it out and scratching the paint around it. This is anecdotal evidence, for sure. But this is an example of the kind of thing that happens that doesn't end up being reported as a hate crime anywhere, or reported at all.

In my experience there aren't many people dedicated to the idea that atheists are actively oppressed on the same level that would register a large number of hate crimes. Typically that's not what is being talked about. More often we're discussing things like the near inability to run for public office as an open atheist, the pressure to stay silent in the workplace about your atheism while coworkers regularly preach their religious belief, and how statements coming from an atheist are jumped on by many as "hate speech" when similar statements coming from religious people are largely ignored. Or how quickly people jump to a false equivalence of "you're worse than they are!" while the people atheists tend to criticize are the ones actually promoting laws to enforce their religious position on others.

Does all of that amount to "oppression" in a real sense? Not in the same way that one might say black people have been historically oppressed, or women under Islam. So if you don't want to call it oppression, that's fine. But there is certainly a lot of distrust and bad sentiment directed toward atheists in general, and not just because they're obnoxious on the internet.

edit: Note how easily people "buy" the image of atheists that these fake posts on /r/cringepics are putting out there. People who have never visited the subreddit just assume it's representative, and on just about all of these submissions there are a few people who assume that it's cross-posted from atheism, and that it was a serious post on /r/atheism. There are people who seem to be honestly unable to tell the difference between /r/magicskyfairy and /r/atheism. I find that really hard to explain without some very strong biases coming into play, because really it's very obvious which posts are from which unless one is being directly cross posted from the other.

edit: Also, I've noticed that you took "it happens" and turned it a bit into "it happens all the time" from Feinburg's post. Feinberg didn't say there was an epidemic of violence against atheists, only that this kind of thing happens from time to time, which you've provided evidence for yourself. It does happen from time to time, and thus there is that much less reason to assume from the gate that the vandalism post in question is false.

Bolded the edit here because really... that's the most important thing I have to say right now.

I agreed with much of your post, and I thank you for your levelheadedness.

In my experience there aren't many people dedicated to the idea that atheists are actively oppressed on the same level that would register a large number of hate crimes. Typically that's not what is being talked about.

...

But there is certainly a lot of distrust and bad sentiment directed toward atheists in general, and not just because they're obnoxious on the internet.

Everyone is oppressed on a small scale. There are negative stereotypes for every group of people which create hardships in different parts of society. Yes I see and have read about the distrust towards the label of 'atheist', but its nothing remarkable when compared other negative stereotypes. That's not dismissing what happens, its from the viewpoint of well... join the crowd.

It does happen from time to time, and thus there is that much less reason to assume from the gate that the vandalism post in question is false.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe it to be false until the burden of proof has been provided to verify its true?

My point about the picture of vandalism isn't that hatecrimes don't happen against atheists, its about is the picture of one of those incidents. I believe hatecrimes happen against atheists, I've linked the stats myself. What I still do not believe is that the picture is of one of those times, as there is not enough evidence.

1) The OP of the picture gives no story. His account has 0 comments, and only that one picture.

2) Not a single thing in the title can be verified in the picture.

How is this vandalism and not just an accident from the occupants?
How is this a store?
How do we know the owner is an atheist?
How do we know, once we've verified the first point, is that the vandalism is due to the atheist nature?

We don't know any of those. OP doesn't even provide the state it happened in, OP doesn't provide any kind of story himself or to a news article (this is real vandalism if its the case), and the picture doesn't lend itself in any way towards the claim made.

But in spite all of that, many /r/atheists would like to still give this a 'true' status even though it has nothing to support that. Which is the same thing they criticize others for; their lack of critical thinking, their willingness to believe things without the proper burden of proof.

As someone else replied to me, they didn't even care if the picture was actually accurate to the title. That is circlejerking.

There is a reason, the reason is religion is very very effective propaganda. It is also deeply rooted within human culture, so defense mechanisms of everyone turns on whenever you criticize religion.

Next, the fact that someone has believed something for YEARS, and then suddenly atheists are saying it's false, that is harsh reality to face. Most peoples' egos will not allow them to admit being wrong or being deceived for all these years. They try arguing with atheists and it doesn't work, so they resort to insulting atheists and claiming they are bullies, and they try to make themselves out to be victims.

It took me a long time to stop being religious because my ego wouldn't let me.

I don't understand your example at all, to me it looks like vandalism of an atheist store, as expressed by the giant "in God we Trust", why else would anyone write that and break a window? For some reason you have deep suspicions about it---like as if religious people have never resorted to vandalism or violence against atheists---I'm sure you're not that gleefully and moronically ignorant of history. Perhaps the store was up north. Perhaps it is in the Midwest where there IS snow AND religious people. Perhaps it's a repost with a changed title---doesn't make it any less true.

If this is the best you can find, then I can't imagine the pain and anger you must feel towards atheists who deny your faith that you think this is worthy enough to campaign against atheists and /r/atheism.

I don't understand your example at all, to me it looks like vandalism of an atheist store, as expressed by the giant "in God we Trust", why else would anyone write that and break a window?

doesn't make it any less true.

What in the picture lets you know this is a store?

What in this picture lets you know that its an atheist store?

What in this picture lets you know it was vandalized due to the fact the store was owned by an atheist?

For all we know, this could be along the same lines of the 'militant athiest fedora' post, a title which would act as confirmation bias placed along with a picture to grab at karma. There is nothing that makes the narrated event 'true'.

That is the hypocritcal side to the 'new atheism' movement which burns a lot of people. "Those religious folk are ignorant and accept what they're told without question - I however ask questions and use reason to form my beliefs" vs "A post about christian vandalism which offers no evidence and no story... must be true!".

Do you really not see

1) That there is no evidence that the picture and the title are related?

2) The assumption that they two are related without question comes off as highly hypocritical form a group which prides itself in critical thinking?

For all we know, this could be along the same lines of the 'militant athiest fedora' post,

We have no reason to doubt the story. We have a reason to doubt the story of militant atheist fedora, because most people are not that retarded and it's obviously a troll post.

The event may not be 100% true, but it certainly appears to be that way based on the photographic evidence. We can see that it's some sort of store or warehouse, and we can see that a window is broken. We can see that it says "In God We trust" which is rather strange thing to paint on a wall, unless it's to send a message.

You have to ask yourself about anything you ponder the truth-value: "(1) What would change if X turned out to be false or true? (2) What would be the benefit or consequence if X turned out to be true or false? (3) Is there anything to cause suspicion of its truthfulness, or any evidence to fully support its truthfulness?"

1) That there is no evidence that the picture and the title are related?

There is evidence, it's in the picture. It's certainly not conclusive, but there's no reason to doubt it.

The assumption that they two are related without question comes off as highly hypocritical form a group which prides itself in critical thinking?

There are things to have critical thinking about, and there are things that won't matter if it's true or false.

If it turns out the building in the picture is not a store, but an abandoned orphanage, it won't really make a difference.

If it turns out the owner wasn't atheist, or the graffiti was meaningless, or the store owner himself painted that---it wouldn't mean anything. What is there to gain by the OP for posting something that is that fake? Karma? Well he can have it, karma is meaningless. Does it somehow invalidate the idea that bible belt fundamentalists commit violence towards atheists--no it wouldn't, there's a long history of that.

You can assume some honesty when it comes to posters in most subreddits (depends on the subreddit), you can certainly doubt it, if there is evidence for it AND if doubting it will provide any benefit.

It's called extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If I say "My chair is actually 3 feet tall," people will believe me, because lying about it is so insignificant and meaningless to do so and the claim is not extraordinary.

If I say "My facebook conversation is real." People may believe me, because what do I have to gain by fabricating a fake conversation.

If I say "I have seen God and he has cured my back pain." Ok now people will doubt me and ridicule me. Because I've made a ridiculous extraordinary, world-changing claim.

See the difference?

There is nothing to gain by doubting the very ordinary claim of "my atheist store was vandalized by bible belt rednecks."

In 2010, there were 7 hatecrimes against atheists. Not 7%, just seven.

So when you say

very ordinary claim of "my atheist store was vandalized by bible belt rednecks."

How does .5% of hatecrimes, a grand total of 7, make this an 'ordinary' event?

And because you've come to these conclusions without statistics or studies, but purely through anecdotal evidence, do you not also see how it may come off as 'smug' when you lecture others about 'extraordinary claims', while simultaneously succumbing to confirmation bias about the very thing you claim is 'ordinary'?

are you saying he is a christian as in his belief, or that he is acting as a christian apologist? How would acting as a christian apologist make him 'not really' an atheist?

One can advocate for the rights of a group they don't belong to, but it doesn't disqualify them from the group they do belong to. Straight people can advocate for gay rights, but that doesn't make them 'not really' straight.

The fact is that sometimes people stop discriminating against others because they see that it's not socially acceptable to do so. Sometimes they abandon the idea that the universe is 6000 years old. Hell, sometimes people get into drugs because all their friends are doing it, or kill themselves because nobody likes them. The most eloquent expression of the power of ridicule and peer affirmation on Reddit, though, is the fact that so many people insist that /r/atheism is some den of teenagers out to rid the world of religion, despite the fact that the demographics for /r/atheism aren't much different from the rest of Reddit and they don't often go outside their subreddit.

Yes, this is why we make fun of religions in /r/atheism, because ridicule is an effective method of convincing people to re-examine their cognitive biases and re-examine their emotional connections (since simple logical arguments have no effect on a brainwashed indoctrinated populace).

This is how the KKK was defeated in popularity, when radio stations made the KKK villains in Superman show, children started dressing up in white sheets---it made the whole KKK a joke. The ridicule was so effective that the KKK immediately declined in popularity. It allowed those members to re-examine their position.

Similarly, religion will also die off once they are able to re-examine why they believe and how it does not provide any benefit any more than a placebo.

Neil is wrong here though. Richard Dawkins has a much more vast experience debating theists. He's certainly approached in the passive and non-offensive methods to convince them and it simply does not work.

You know why it doesn't work? Because religion is an emotional connection, not a logical one, passive logical argumentation doesn't convince many people, when they have an emotional attachment to God.

Thus, your arguments must also address and mirror why they have this nonsensical emotional attachment.\

If you're defending the core belief of someone that is the antithesis of your own core belief, then your core belief is not what you say it is.

As an example: If I say that my core belief is that killing Jews is wrong, I'm not going to turn around and say that Nazis are right to argue that Jews should be removed from the earth. That's a contradiction.

As such, if I say I do not believe in God's existence, as an atheist, I cannot then turn around and say that Christians are right to claim that God exists and that atheists are wrong to claim he doesn't.

That's called being an apologist for the other side.

Your claim of being atheist falls on deaf ears because it's probably not true since your actions are in contradiction.

This is different from an atheist defending the right of Christians to worship. Or a Jew defending the right of a neo-nazi to free speech. That wouldn't be a contradiction, but this is not the case here.

As such, if I say I do not believe in God's existence, as an atheist, I cannot then turn around and say that Christians are right to claim that God exists and that atheists are wrong to claim he doesn't....That's a contradiction.

People can be contradictions all the time. /r/atheism likes to joke around that politicians who vote against gay rights are probably gay themselves - because that's happened before. People aren't computers, they can hold many contradicting views at the same time.

Neil is wrong here though. Richard Dawkins has a much more vast experience debating theists.

"Debate me, I'm an Atheist" - see why that meme resonates with so many people? For the 'new atheism', it isn't about changing minds, it's about winning a debate.

passive logical argumentation doesn't convince many people, when they have an emotional attachment to God

Changing someones mind about religion will never happen from a single interaction/debate - we're talking about changing someones most fundamental worldview. Being an asshole during the exchange only insures that another one is less likely to take place. Sure you may win the battle, but you'll lose the war.

Yes people can hold contradictions and have cognitive dissonance. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be ridiculed on it.

If someone has such a contradiction, such as the guy who fully supports Christian beliefs but at the same time claims to be an atheist---then he should be consistently and incessantly called out on it until he begs for mercy.

"Debate me, I'm an Atheist" - see why that meme resonates with so many people?

Religion is a meme, and that's why IT resonates with people. Yes, I'm glad the "Debate me, I'm an atheist" meme catches on, while it's to poke fun at the nerdyness of atheists, it subconsciously delivers the message that people can't really debate atheists because they have no evidence for the claim of God.

For the 'new atheism', it isn't about changing minds, it's about winning a debate.

If you win a debate, you have changed their minds though, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Changing someones mind about religion will never happen from a single interaction/debate - we're talking about changing someones most fundamental worldview.

Certainly, which is why we don't give up even after you insist that there's something wrong with the atheist movement.

Being an asshole during the exchange only insures that another one is less likely to take place.

Atheists are never assholes about it. It's just the interpretation of being questioned for their beliefs that causes them to believe they are assholes. But in reality, they are simply questioning beliefs, not being assholes.

It's a delusion the mind creates when it feels under attack.

another one is less likely to take place. Sure you may win the battle, but you'll lose the war.

I don't agree, for most people when they encounter a confrontation, at first they are afraid or reluctant/regretful about it, but then they come back for round 2, 3, 4, because their ego, while feeling threatened runs away, it always comes back because it is overconfident in itself.

I saw it on the new tab about a minute after it was submitted. And it was front page a half hour after that. Top submission on the subreddit before long. I reported it to the mods the moment I saw the brigading, and it was removed after about an hour and a half from both subreddits*. But not before getting 1700 upvotes and finding a place at number one in /r/atheism.

*I mean to say that the submission was removed from /r/atheism, and the brigade links were removed from /r/cringepics

I like the idea of a compilation thread, but I can't say I like the idea of making one. I have a break coming up at the end of the month, so perhaps I'll find the gumption to to do a compilation and run the /r/atheism troll frequent fliers then.